Allahabad High Court
Lachchhi Ram vs State Of U.P.Thru ... on 7 December, 2015
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
A.F.R.
Court No. - 4
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 11051 of 2015
Petitioner :- Lachchhi Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Rural Devp.Deptt.Lko.And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K.Singh Kalhans,Shikha Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.10731 (M/B) of 2015, which was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh writ petition keeping in view the observations made therein.
The main grievance of the petitioner was that the Chief Development Officer could not have proceeded to make any inquiry keeping in view the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, where the District Magistrate is the only authority to investigate the functioning of the Gram Sabha and Gram Pradhan.
This writ petition has been filed taking a ground that the Chief Development Officer had no authority and they are acting without jurisdiction more so when the same complaint was being examined by the Ombudsman as provided for in the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development dated 16.1.2014, copy whereof is Annexure No.3 to the writ petition.
Learned Counsel submits that once the Ombudsman was looking into such a complaint, then in that view of the matter a parallel complaint entertained by the Chief Development Officer was without authority in law. For this, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the powers and responsibilities of the Ombudsman as contained in clause-8 of Chapter-III of the said instructions issued by the Government of India read with Clause 9 to contend that the complaint falls within the definition of the subjects referred to therein and which can only be inquired into by the Ombudsman and not by the Chief Development Officer.
In short the submission is that the impugned order dated 28.8.2015 for getting an inquiry conducted is without authority in law.
The matter was adjourned on the previous occasion to enable the learned Counsel to address the Court as to under what authority was the Chief Development Officer proceeding to undertake this exercise of inquiry under the impugned order dated 28.8.2015 to which the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has today given a response by placing before us and notification issued by the State Government dated 12.5.2007 under the provisions of Clause 4.1 of the National Employment Guarantee Act, 2015. The same has been published in Part-VI of 2007 LLT 28. On the strength of the said notification, it is urged that the Chief Development Officer, being the District Programme Coordinator, has powers under clause 7.4 to carry out investigation and an inquiry about any work having been done and to take appropriate action.
We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the subject matter of investigation by the Ombudsman under the instructions dated 16.1.2014 are clearly relatable to the complaints from MGNREGA workers and others and the matters specified in Clause 9. Clause 9 gives the detail of the subjects that can be inquired into by the Ombudsman. A perusal thereof would leave no room for doubt that the actual execution of the work can be inquired into by the Ombudsman.
However, so far as the State Notification dated 12.5.2007 is concerned, the same fixes the responsibility on the District Programme Coordinator to carry out the functions on conducting an inquiry and to do the needful in order to ensure that the work is executed. It is during such an exercise as per Clause 7.4 read with Clause 2.1.3 under the Notification dated 12.5.2007 that the Chief Development Officer, who is authorized to act as District Programme Coordinator, has passed the order dated 12.8.2015. The instructions, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner issued by the Government of India, does not debar the Chief Development Officer, who is the District Programme Coordinator for conducting any inquiry nor is the authority of the District Programme Coordinator excluded or ousted by virtue of any such provision or notification issued by the Government of India. It is in addition thereto that the District Programme Coordinator has been given authority to carry out inspection and do the needful as per the Clause 7.4 of the State Government Notification dated 12.5.2007.
Consequently, the ground taken by the petitioner that the Chief Development Officer did not have any authority to proceed with the investigation is absolutely unfounded and is clearly traceable to the power of the Chief Development Officer in the capacity of District Programme Coordinator under the Notification dated 12.5.2007.
The second relief, therefore, also cannot be granted and in the above circumstances, the Chief Development officer acting as District Programme Coordinator can proceed with the matter even if the Ombudsman has proceeded to make an inquiry under the Notification of the Central Government.
There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.12.2015
Irshad
